This meta-analysis evaluated how the number of lymph nodes dissected (LND) and the positive lymph node ratio (LNR) following esophagectomy influence long-term outcomes in esophageal cancer.

Esophagectomy is a critical treatment for esophageal cancer, but the optimal extent of lymphadenectomy remains debated, especially in the era of modern neoadjuvant protocols.

A systematic electronic search of Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Library was performed for studies published between 2000 and 2024. Included studies assess overall survival (OS) in patients with esophageal cancer undergoing esophagectomy with lymphadenectomy, comparing groups with high and low LND and LNR. A subset analysis examined outcomes in patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy.

In total, 18 and 19 articles were included in the LND and LNR meta-analyses, respectively. High LND and low LNR were associated with improved OS [LND: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.67-0.85, P < 0.01; LNR: HR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.33-0.47, P < 0.001]. Subset analysis revealed that these survival benefits persisted in patients who received neoadjuvant therapy (LND: HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.34-0.93, P = 0.01; LNR: HR = 0.24, 95% CI = 0.15-0.39, P < 0.001).

These findings highlight the prognostic importance of high LND and low LNR in improving OS following esophagectomy, regardless of neoadjuvant therapy. Extensive lymphadenectomy may enhance survival, and LNR provides a valuable prognostic tool for guiding postoperative treatment decisions.

Standard treatment of patients with stage II/III esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (E/GEJ) cancer involves neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT), resection, and immunotherapy. Our trial evaluated the addition of perioperative avelumab to standard treatments.

Patients with resectable E/GEJ cancers received avelumab with nCRT and adjuvant avelumab after resection. Primary endpoints for phase I and II portions were safety and pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, respectively. Secondary endpoints included recurrence-free survival (RFS), surgical complication prevalence, and R0 resection rate.

Twenty-two patients enrolled in the study. Median follow-up during data cutoff was 23.9 months. There were no dose-limiting toxicities during the run-in phase. Nineteen patients (86.4%) underwent resection with R0 resection rate of 78.9% and with pCR rate of 26%. Most common treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) were cytopenias from chemoradiation. Aside from one grade ≥ 3 avelumab-related hypersensitivity, no grade ≥ 3 avelumab TRAEs were seen. Median RFS was not reached, and 1-year RFS and overall survival were 71% and 81%, respectively. The study was terminated before full planned accrual due to standard practice change based on the CheckMate 577 trial.

The addition of perioperative avelumab to nCRT was tolerable and demonstrated promising outcomes.

The impact of demographic and socioeconomic backgrounds on delays to cancer care and subsequent mortality for those with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma is not well studied. We sought to investigate the relationship between sociodemographic determinants of health, delays to consensus guideline therapy, and survival outcomes for gastric cancer.

Patients with gastric cancer from the National Cancer Database (2004-2020) were partitioned into early-stage (AJCC Stage 0-I) and locoregionally advanced (Stage II-resectable stage IV) disease receiving upfront surgery and neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) followed by surgical resection, respectively. The primary outcome was odds of delay to upfront surgery or NAT initiation/post-NAT resection. Secondary outcomes were short-term (30-, 90-day) mortality and long-term survival.

A total of 18,307 patients were identified; 10,623 and 7684 patients had early-stage and locoregionally advanced disease, respectively. The median [interquartile range] time to upfront surgery: 42 [22-66] days, NAT initiation: 40 [29-54] days, and post-NAT resection: 55 [44-69] days from end of NAT. In adjusted analysis, African American race, Medicaid or non-Medicare governmental insurance coverage, and lower educational and/or income status were significantly associated with delayed initiation of preoperative therapies. Delayed upfront surgery was associated with worse long-term survival (HR 1.15 [1.05-1.23], p < 0.001); delayed post-NAT surgery but not delayed NAT initiation portended worse 90-day mortality (HR 1.31 [1.02-1.69], p = 0.038) and long-term survival (HR 1.21 [1.10-1.32], p < 0.001).

Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics are associated with delays in receiving consensus guideline therapy for gastric cancer and translate to significantly worse survival outcomes.

The incorporation of immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for advanced, unresectable, or metastatic gastroesophageal cancers (GECs), with improved survival outcomes. These improvements in outcomes for advanced GECs have led to clinical trials evaluating the role of immunotherapy in patients with resectable early-stage GECs. However, there remains a high burden of morbidity and mortality, and ongoing trials utilizing novel immunotherapy agents and combinations are underway. This review summarizes the findings of previous and ongoing clinical trials related to immunotherapy for patients with early- and late-stage GECs.

A detrimental association between radiation-induced lymphopenia (RIL) and oncologic outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer has been established. However, an optimal metric for RIL remains undefined but is important for the application of this knowledge in clinical decision-making and trial designs. The aim of this study was to find the optimal RIL metric discerning survival.

Patients with esophageal cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT; 2004-2022) were selected. Studied metrics included absolute lymphocyte counts (ALCs) and neutrophil counts-and calculated derivatives-at baseline and during CRT. Multivariable Cox regression models for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were developed for each RIL metric. The optimal RIL metric was defined as the one in the model with the highest c-statistic.

Among 1339 included patients, 68% received photon-based and 32% proton-based CRT (median follow-up, 24.9 months). In multivariable analysis, the best-performing models included "ALC in week 3 of CRT" (corrected c-statistic 0.683 for PFS and 0.662 for OS). At an optimal threshold of <0.5 × 103/μL (ie, grade ≥3 RIL), ALC in week 3 was significantly associated with PFS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.27-2.13) and OS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.15-2.08), with 5-year PFS of 29% vs 40% and OS of 38% vs 51%, respectively.

Reaching grade ≥3 RIL in week 3 of CRT for esophageal cancer is the strongest RIL metric to distinguish survival outcomes. We suggest that this metric should be the target for lymphopenia-mitigating strategies and propose this metric to be included in future trials.

Many patients with locally advanced gastro-oesophageal cancers are unable to complete adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy, raising questions about its therapeutic utility. The aim of this study was to examine whether pathological response to neoadjuvant FLOT can guide its adjuvant use.

Patients with non-metastatic gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant FLOT and underwent surgery from 1 January 2017 to 1 January 2022 from 43 hospitals across 12 countries were analysed. Pathological response was assessed using tumour regression grading systems, trichotomized into minimal responders (MR; worst category), complete responders (CR; pCR), and partial responders (PR; between MR and CR). Survival outcomes of patients who did and did not receive adjuvant FLOT were compared using Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, propensity score matched, and sensitivity analysis.

A total of 1887 patients (459 MR, 221 CR, and 1207 PR) were evaluated. The median follow-up was 25.5 (interquartile range 15.0-39.1) months. In the MR group, there was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS; HR 1.03 (95% c.i. 0.78 to 1.36), P = 0.836) between those who did and did not receive adjuvant FLOT. Whilst there was a difference in non-adjusted OS, this became statistically non-significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics (HR 0.96 (95% c.i. 0.70 to 1.30), P = 0.801). In the CR group, there was no difference in DFS (HR 0.88 (95% c.i. 0.41 to 1.85), P = 0.724) or OS (HR 0.69 (95% c.i. 0.31 to 1.54), P = 0.343) between those who did and did not receive adjuvant FLOT. In the PR group, adjuvant FLOT conferred a significant DFS (HR 0.68 (95% c.i. 0.55 to 0.86), P < 0.001) and OS (HR 0.55 (95% c.i. 0.44 to 0.69), P < 0.001) benefit.

Pathological response to neoadjuvant FLOT may guide the use of adjuvant FLOT, enabling personalized approaches to treatment.

Recent advancements in radiotherapy for esophageal cancer have significantly improved treatment outcomes and patient quality of life. Traditional radiotherapy techniques have been enhanced by the integration of advanced imaging and precision targeting technologies, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and proton therapy, which allow for more accurate tumor targeting while minimizing damage to surrounding healthy tissues. Additionally, combining radiotherapy with immunotherapy has shown promising results, leveraging the body's immune response to enhance the effectiveness of cancer treatment. Studies have also highlighted the benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgical resection, which has been associated with improved overall survival rates compared to radiotherapy alone. These innovations are paving the way for more effective and personalized treatment strategies, offering new hope for patients with esophageal cancer.

The use of surrogate endpoints may expedite the reporting of study outcomes of clinical trials. The validity of disease-free survival (DFS) as a surrogate for overall survival (OS) in the neoadjuvant treatment of esophageal (E) or gastroesophageal junctional (GEJ) carcinomas remains uncertain.

To evaluate DFS as a surrogate end-point for OS in E/GEJ using the meta-analytical approach DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: individual patient data from an international meta-analysis on operable locally advanced E/GEJ, which including randomized trials comparing at least two of the neo-adjuvant treatment strategies: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and/or chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS).

Individual (Kendall's tau) and trial-level (R2) correlations between DFS and OS were estimated using a Clayton copula.

DFS and OS data were available for a total of 4518 pts: 2222 pts included in CS vs S, 1908 pts in CRS vs S, and 388 in CS vs CRS comparisons. 3440 patients had a DFS event and 3303 patients died. Kendall's tau was 0.73 [95 % CI 0.71 - 0.75] and R2 trial-level correlation was 0.95 [0.84 - 0.99] for CS vs S, Kendall's tau was 0.76 [0.74 - 0.77] and R2 was 0.96 [0.87 - 0.99] for CRS vs S, Kendall's tau was 0.87 [0.78 - 0.92] and R2 was 0.93 [0.43 - 1] for CRS vs CS. In a multistate model, the median time in the recurrence state was shorter in older vs more recent trials: mean time of 10.8 [10.2 - 11.4] vs 16.5 months [15.4-17.6].

DFS is a validated surrogate endpoint for OS in trials evaluating neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy in E/GEJ. DFS may be more useful as an endpoint when delays between recurrences and death become larger.

To compare the causes of death in patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery.

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients with stage T3-4aN0M0/T1-4aN1-3 M0 esophageal cancer who underwent either neoadjuvant chemotherapy or neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery. Overall survival (OS) and specific causes of death were analyzed and compared between the two treatment groups.

A total of 4528 patients were included: 333 (7.4%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and 4195 (92.6%) underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The 5-year OS was comparable between the two groups, both before (42.4% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.98-1.33; P = 0.097) and after (42.2% vs. 42.2%; HR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.31; P = 0.567) propensity score matching. The cumulative 5-year absolute risk of death from esophageal cancer (49.9% vs. 50.6%, P = 0.470), death from non-tumor causes (7.8% vs. 9.7%, P = 0.160), death due to lung causes (2.8% vs. 1.4%, P = 0.432), and death from heart-related causes (2.2% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.524) were similar between the two treatment groups.

In patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, OS and the causes of death were comparable between those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy and those undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

The oncologic benefit of induction chemotherapy (IC) before chemoradiation (CRT) compared to CRT alone for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is not well defined. We hypothesized that IC with CRT would improve survival and pathologic complete response rate compared to CRT alone.

A retrospective review of patients with biopsy proven esophageal or GEJ adenocarcinoma treated with preoperative CRT and IC + CRT and surgical resection from 2007 to 2023 at a single institution was performed. First order outcomes were overall survival and pathologic complete response rate; secondary outcomes included disease-free survival and distant metastasis failure. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on baseline characteristics and tumor-specific features. Survival analysis was performed with Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests and Cox regression analysis.

Of 205 patients that met inclusion criteria, 76 (38%) patients underwent IC + CRT. There were no significant differences in demographic or tumor-specific characteristics between the two cohorts. There were no differences in the median overall survival between CRT and IC + CRT groups (47 months vs. not reached, p = 0.194). The rate of pathologic complete response in the overall cohort was 22%; IC + CRT was not associated with higher complete tumor response than CRT alone (20% vs. 23%, p = 0.557). There were no significant differences in any of the secondary outcomes between the two treatment paradigms.

We could not detect added oncologic benefit in survival or pathologic complete response with IC over CRT alone for resectable esophageal and GEJ cancer. Biomarker driven prospective studies exploring the optimal perioperative treatment regimens are warranted.

In this paper, we review recent prospective surgical studies on resectable esophageal and lung cancer.

A narrative literature review was performed using the terms 'resectable esophageal cancer' and 'multimodal therapy' and 'resectable non-small cell lung cancer'. Prospective surgical trials performed from 2010 to 2023 were identified and analyzed.

gov was queried for ongoing studies.

The studies on esophageal cancer demonstrate the benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiation, compared with surgery alone, and the emerging role of immunotherapy as part of induction and adjuvant treatment protocols. The selected studies on lung cancer demonstrate the evolving role of sublobar resection for patients with peripheral node-negative clinical stage IA1 disease and the developing role of neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy for patients with stage II-IIIA disease.

The methods of treating patients with resectable esophageal or lung cancer are changing. Efforts to limit patient morbidity and optimize tumor treatment before surgery are increasingly being pursued and these approaches will likely continue to evolve as tumor biology and long-term pharmacologic mechanisms of action become clearer. Personalized medicine strategies that are based on tumor characteristics and the host genetic profile remain on the horizon, not yet ready for adoption in routine clinical practice.

In the Western hemisphere, nonmetastatic locally advanced esophageal carcinoma is mostly treated in multimodal therapy protocols according to current therapy guidelines. In squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, neoadjuvant chemoradiation is the favorable option. Unimodal surgical and chemoradiation treatment alternatives show inferior results on this entity. For locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus perioperative chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemoradiation have been competing treatment approaches in the recent past. Both are evidence based (class I evidence) and superior compared to unimodal surgery. However, the latest results of head-to-head comparative therapy studies show superior overall survival results for the FLOT regimen of perioperative chemotherapy. Furthermore, immunotherapy and targeted therapy with monoclonal antibodies have become a strong focus of current clinical research. Nivolumab as well as trastuzumab are already an important part of the current standard therapies. In both entities - SCC and AC - a significant quota of patients shows a locoregional complete remission of the tumor in the specimen after modern neoadjuvant therapy and surgical resection. The addition of immunotherapy and targeted therapy to neoadjuvant therapy further increases complete remission rates in defined subgroups according to the results of current studies. Currently, three prospective randomized trials are ongoing on the subject of future possibilities for organ-preserving concepts in case of complete clinical remission ("surgery as needed," "watch and wait"). It is to be expected for the future that curative short-term and long-term treatment results in locally advanced esophageal carcinoma will significantly improve, particularly due to the additional possibilities of immunotherapy and organ-preserving therapy concepts in postneoadjuvant complete remission.

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal- and gastroesophageal junction cancer induces tumor regression. In approximately one fourth of patients, this leads to a pathological complete response in the resection specimen. Hence, active surveillance may be an alternative strategy in patients without residual disease after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Previous studies have shown that the combination of esophagogastroduodenoscopy with bite-on-bite biopsies, endoscopic ultrasound with fine needle aspiration of suspected lymph nodes, and a PET-CT-scan can be considered adequate for the detection of residual disease. So far, it has been unclear whether active surveillance with surgery as needed is a safe treatment option and leads to non-inferior overall survival compared to standard esophagectomy after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. This review will discuss the current status of active surveillance for esophageal and junctional cancer.

The best multimodal approach for resectable locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is unclear. An important question is whether perioperative chemotherapy is preferable to preoperative chemoradiotherapy.

In this phase 3, multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned in a 1:1 ratio patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma to receive perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) plus surgery or preoperative chemoradiotherapy (radiotherapy at a dose of 41.4 Gy and carboplatin and paclitaxel) plus surgery. Eligibility criteria included a primary tumor with a clinical stage of cT1 cN+, cT2-4a cN+, or cT2-4a cN0 disease, in which T indicates the size and extent of the tumor (higher numbers indicate a more advanced tumor), and N indicates the presence (N+) or absence (N0) of cancer spread to the lymph nodes, without evidence of metastatic spread. The primary end point was overall survival.

From February 2016 through April 2020, we assigned 221 patients to the FLOT group and 217 patients to the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. With a median follow-up of 55 months, overall survival at 3 years was 57.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.1 to 64.0) in the FLOT group and 50.7% (95% CI, 43.5 to 57.5) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.92; P = 0.01). Progression-free survival at 3 years was 51.6% (95% CI, 44.3 to 58.4) in the FLOT group and 35.0% (95% CI, 28.4 to 41.7) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.85). Among the patients who started the assigned treatment, grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed in 120 of 207 patients (58.0%) in the FLOT group and in 98 of 196 patients (50.0%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Serious adverse events were observed in 98 of 207 patients (47.3%) in the FLOT group and in 82 of 196 patients (41.8%) in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group. Mortality at 90 days after surgery was 3.1% in the FLOT group and 5.6% in the preoperative-chemoradiotherapy group.

Perioperative chemotherapy with FLOT led to improved survival among patients with resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma as compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy. (Funded by the German Research Foundation; ESOPEC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509286.).

No consensus exists on the optimal therapy for resectable gastric cancer (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumors, including the effectiveness of chemoradiotherapy versus perioperative chemotherapy (PC). Our study aimed to compare overall survival (OS) outcomes associated with the recommended treatment modalities for GC and GEJ tumors and evaluate treatment trends from 2010 to 2020. A national registry cohort identified patients with ≥ cT2 nonmetastatic GC and GEJ cancer. Treatment modalities were classified as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCR), PC, adjuvant chemotherapy (AC), and adjuvant chemoradiation (ACR). Kaplan-Meier curve and multivariable Cox regression models evaluated factors associated with OS. A cohort of 7665 patients were included. Patients who received PC had the highest OS (median 86.80 months, 95% CI 73.40-NE), while chemoradiotherapy in the neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings had worse OS than PC and NC (NCR median 47.15 months, 95% CI 44.58-52.27, and ACR median 52.67 months, 95%CI 42.78-63.93). The Cox proportional hazards model showed that NCR and NC had worse survival than PC (HR 1.74, 95% CI 1.50-2.02, p < 0.001 and HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.10-1.44, p = 0.0008, respectively). Additionally, the most utilized modality during 2020 was NC (35.8%), followed by PC (28.0%) and NCR (24.9%). The utilization of PC and NC had the most substantial rise between 2010 and 2020, increasing by 11.0%. The study demonstrates the association of PC with improved OS outcomes for nonmetastatic GC and GEJ tumors. Therapies combining radiation with chemotherapy and extended lymph node dissection correlated with a worse prognosis compared to PC and NC. Despite the association with improved outcomes, national data reveals low utilization rates for PC.

The current guidelines for the treatment of esophageal cancer recommend a multimodal approach that includes chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy, radiation, and surgery. Despite advances in treatment, rates of treatment failure, pathologic incomplete response, tumor metastasis, and death remain unacceptably high.

This study was a narrative literature review using the terms "resectable esophageal cancer" and "multimodal therapy" to identify prospective trials of neoadjuvant radiation and chemotherapy, individually or combined with surgery, for esophageal cancer. Trials performed between 1984 and 2022 were identified and analyzed.

gov was queried to identify ongoing studies.

Twenty-one clinical studies were identified: 15 randomized controlled trials and 6 prospective nonrandomized trials. The results of the randomized trials suggest that multimodal therapy-in the form of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in combination with radiation or chemotherapy alone, followed by surgery-is associated with better rates of local disease control and partial clinical response and, potentially, longer survival than is surgery alone. Immunotherapy is an emerging option for the treatment of patients with esophageal cancer.

The treatment of patients with resectable esophageal cancer is rapidly evolving. Although previous treatment options have had only limited benefits for patients, significant progress has been made during last 3 decades. The results of the available studies suggest that advances in the treatment of esophageal cancer have the potential to improve survival in these patients; however, questions remain regarding mechanisms of action, patient selection, and the use of personalized approaches that are based on genetics.

The benefits of neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery for patients with locally advanced oesophageal cancer have been well established by multiple trials. However, there may be socioeconomic barriers impacting equitable administration. We aim to identify whether disparities exist in the uptake of neoadjuvant therapy among patients with loco-regional oesophageal cancer.

We queried the National Cancer Database to identify patients with clinical stage II-III oesophageal cancer who underwent surgical resection (2006-2020). Logistic regression was performed to identify associations between sociodemographic factors and uptake of neoadjuvant therapy. In propensity score-matched groups, survival was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Among 19 748 clinical stage II-III patients, 85% (n = 16 781) received neoadjuvant therapy and 15% (n = 2967) underwent upfront surgery. Rates of neoadjuvant uptake increased over time. On multivariable analysis after adjusting by clinical stage, factors associated with lower rates of neoadjuvant therapy included older age (age ≥70, adjusted odds ratio 0.52; 95% confidence interval 0.47-0.57; P < 0.001), female sex (0.76; 0.69-0.85; P < 0.001), Black race (0.77; 0.63-0.94; P = 0.009), more comorbidities (0.76; 0.65-0.85; P < 0.001) and government rather than private insurance (0.84; 0.76-0.93; P < 0.001). In a propensity-matched cohort accounting for these variables, neoadjuvant treatment was associated with improved 5-year overall survival compared to upfront surgery (41.1% vs 35.4%, P < 0.001).

Several sociodemographic factors are associated with the delivery of neoadjuvant therapy in patients with oesophageal cancer, including age, sex, race, and insurance status. Interventions can be put into place to target vulnerable patients and ensure equitable delivery of care.

There has been controversy in the management of gastroesophageal (GE) junction cancers with pre-operative chemoradiation and peri-operative chemotherapy as accepted practices. We aim to assess and compare the defining trials establishing current standards of care and discuss future directions seeking to further improve patient-centered outcomes in GE junction cancers.

Over the last two decades, several large Phase III randomized trials have been conducted including GE junction cancers, showing superiority of 1) pre-operative chemoradiation over surgery (CROSS) and 2) peri-operative chemotherapy with FLOT over CROSS without radiotherapy (FLOT 4). While NEO-Aegis suggested equipoise between the CROSS vs. peri-operative chemotherapy, the recently presented ESOPEC trial demonstrated superiority of peri-operative FLOT versus CROSS in esophagus and GE junction adenocarcinomas. Based on the ESOPEC trial, peri-operative chemotherapy with FLOT appears to be a preferred regimen for patients with resectable GE junction adenocarcinomas in patients able to receive FLOT. There is evidence in support of other practices, such as induction chemotherapy, pre-operative chemoradiation, definitive chemoradiation for those not fitting ESOPEC criteria. Chemoradiation ± chemotherapy with non-operative intent represents a promising strategy for patients seeking organ preservation, and ongoing studies will better define its feasibility and long-term outcomes.

In parallel with improved operative and oncologic outcomes for esophageal cancer, paraconduit hiatus hernia (PHH) is an increasingly recognized entity, both in the early postoperative phase and in long-term follow-up. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of and risk factors for PHH, and to describe management approaches in a tertiary referral center. All patients undergoing surgery with curative intent for esophageal cancer from 2008 to 2022 at a single center were included. Early PHH was defined as occurring within three months of index surgery, with all other cases defined as late PHH. Surveillance computed tomography scans were undertaken among all disease-free patients to 5 years postoperatively. Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to determine independent risk factors for PHH. Overall, 897 patients were studied. Totally, 62 patients (6.9%) developed PHH during follow-up. The 5-year survival-adjusted incidence of PHH was 9.7%. PHH was an asymptomatic radiologic finding in 45.5% of early and 84.3% of late cases (P = 0.070). Surgical intervention was required in 16 cases (25.8%), more commonly following early (63.6%) as compared with late PHH (17.6%, P < 0.01). Younger age (P < 0.039), initial transhiatal operative approach (P < 0.006) and extended resection of the crura (P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased risk of PHH on multivariable analysis. PHH was identified in almost 1 in 10 patients using surveillance imaging in long-term follow-up, independently associated with the transhiatal surgical approach and resection of crura, which raises consideration of prevention strategies. Surgical intervention is often required for patients with PHH presenting early after surgery, but many patients presenting with late PHH may be managed expectantly.

To evaluate outcomes after primary surgery (PS) or neoadjuvant treatment followed by surgery (NAT/S) in cT2 staged adenocarcinomas of the esophagus (EAC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), a multinational high-volume center study was undertaken.

The optimal treatment approach with either NAT/S or PS for clinically staged cT2cN any or cT2N0 EAC and GEJ remains unknown due to the lack of randomized controlled trials.

A retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained databases from 10 centers was performed. Between January 2012 and August 2023, 645 patients who fulfilled inclusion criteria of GEJ Siewert type I, II, or EAC with cT2 status at diagnosis underwent PS or NAT/S with curative intent. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

In the cT2cN any cohort, 192 patients (29.8%) underwent PS and 453 (70.2%) underwent NAT/S. In all cT2cN0 patients (n = 333), NAT/s remained the more frequent treatment (56.2%). Patients undergoing PS were in both cT2 cohorts older ( P < 0.001) and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ( P < 0.05). R0 resection showed no differences between NAT/S and PS in both cT2 cohorts ( P > 0.4).Median OS was 51.0 months in the PS group (95% CI: 31.6-70.4) versus 114.0 months (95% CI: 53.9-174.1) in the NAT/S group ( P = 0.003) of cT2cN any patients. For cT2cN0 patients, NAT/S was associated with longer OS ( P = 0.002) and disease-free survival ( P = 0.001). After propensity score matching of the cT2N0 patients, survival benefit for NAT/S remained ( P = 0.004). Histopathology showed that 38.1% of cT2cN any and 34.2% of cT2cN0 patients were understaged.

Due to the unreliable identification of cT2N0 disease, all patients should be offered a multimodal therapeutic approach.

Background: Preclinical and clinical data indicate that chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in combination with checkpoint inhibitors may prime an anti-tumor immunological response in esophageal cancer. However, responses to neoadjuvant therapy can vary widely and the key biomarkers to determine response remain poorly understood. The fecal microbiome is a novel and potentially modifiable biomarker of immunotherapy response, and both fecal and tumor microbes have been found to associate with outcomes in esophageal cancer. Methods: Fecal and tumor samples were collected from patients with stage II-III resectable esophageal or gastroesophageal junction carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus CRT prior to surgical resection. Microbiome profiles were analyzed by 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing and taxonomic data were integrated with fecal metabolite analysis to assess microbial function. Results: The fecal microbiome of patients with pathological complete response (PCR) grouped in distinct clusters compared to patients with residual viable tumor (RVT) by Bray-Curtis diversity metric. Integrated taxonomic and metabolomic analysis of fecal samples identified a sphingolipid and primary bile acid as enriched in the PCR, the levels of which correlated with several bacterial species: Roseburis inulinivorans, Ruminococcus callidus, and Fusicantenibacter saccharivorans. Analysis of the tumor microbiome profiles identified several bacterial genera previously associated with esophageal tumors, including Streptococcus and Veillonella. Conclusions: These results further characterize the fecal and tumor microbiome of patients with operable esophageal cancer and identify specific microbes and metabolites that may help elucidate how microbes contribute to tumor response with neoadjuvant CRT combined with ICI.

The focus of this research is to examine the growing use of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy. Specifically, it evaluates the immediate clinical and cancer-related results of combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with a systematic approach to total mesoesophageal excision, as opposed to traditional open transthoracic esophagectomy methods that do not employ a structured total mesoesophageal excision protocol.

A propensity score-matched analysis of 185 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomies and 223 open transthoracic esophagectomies after standardized Ivor Lewis esophagectomy was performed. After 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to account for confounding by covariates, outcomes of 181 robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy and 181 open transthoracic esophagectomy were compared.

The patient characteristics showed significant differences in the age distribution and in comorbidities such as coronary heart disease, arterial hypertension, and anticoagulant intake. The R0-resection rate of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (96.7%) was significantly higher than open transthoracic esophagectomy (89.0%, P = .004). Thirty-day mortality and hospital mortality showed no significant differences. Postoperative pneumonia rate after robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (12.7%) was significantly reduced (open transthoracic esophagectomy 28.7%, P < .001). Robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy had a significantly shorter intensive care unit stay (P < .001) and shorter hospital stay (P < .001).

This single-center, retrospective study employing propensity score matching found that combining robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy with structured total mesoesophageal excision results in better short-term clinical and oncologic outcomes than open transthoracic esophagectomy. This finding is significant because the increased rate of R0 resection could indicate a higher likelihood of improved long-term survival. Additionally, enhanced overall postoperative recovery may contribute to better risk management in esophagectomy procedures.

Clinician-led quality control into oncological decision-making is crucial for optimising patient care. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) techniques provide data-driven approaches to unravel how clinical variables influence this decision-making. We applied global XAI techniques to examine the impact of key clinical decision-drivers when mapped by a machine learning (ML) model, on the likelihood of receiving different oesophageal cancer (OC) treatment modalities by the multidisciplinary team (MDT).

Retrospective analysis of 893 OC patients managed between 2010 and 2022 at our tertiary unit, used a random forests (RF) classifier to predict four possible treatment pathways as determined by the MDT: neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (NACT + S), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (NACRT + S), surgery-alone, and palliative management. Variable importance and partial dependence (PD) analyses then examined the influence of targeted high-ranking clinical variables within the ML model on treatment decisions as a surrogate model of the MDT decision-making dynamic.

Amongst guideline-variables known to determine treatments, such as Tumour-Node-Metastasis (TNM) staging, age also proved highly important to the RF model (16.1 % of total importance) on variable importance analysis. PD subsequently revealed that predicted probabilities for all treatment modalities change significantly after 75 years (p < 0.001). Likelihood of surgery-alone and palliative therapies increased for patients aged 75-85yrs but lowered for NACT/NACRT. Performance status divided patients into two clusters which influenced all predicted outcomes in conjunction with age.

XAI techniques delineate the relationship between clinical factors and OC treatment decisions. These techniques identify advanced age as heavily influencing decisions based on our model with a greater role in patients with specific tumour characteristics. This study methodology provides the means for exploring conscious/subconscious bias and interrogating inconsistencies in team-based decision-making within the era of AI-driven decision support.

Neoadjuvant therapy combining camrelizumab with chemotherapy has emerged as a promising approach for treating locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). However, the optimal strategy for integrating immunotherapy with chemotherapy remains to be fully defined. This single-arm phase II study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant therapy with camrelizumab induction followed by camrelizumab plus chemotherapy in locally advanced ESCC.

Patients with clinical stage cT2-4N0M0 or cTxN1-3M0 ESCC were enrolled in the study. Patients received one dose of camrelizumab (200 mg) followed by docetaxel (75 mg/m2) and nedaplatin (75 mg/m2) plus camrelizumab (200 mg) every 3 weeks for two cycles, and then underwent surgery within 3-4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the major pathological response (MPR) rate. The secondary endpoints included the pathological complete response (pCR) rate, R0 resection rate, downstaging rate, disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and safety.

In total, 55 patients were enrolled in the study between 16 April 2020 and 30 October 2021. Of these 55 patients, 53 (96.4%) completed neoadjuvant therapy, and 48 (87.3%) underwent surgery. The MPR rate was 77.1% [37/48, 95% confidence interval (CI): 62.7-88.0%]. The pCR (ypT0N0) rate was 39.6% (19/48, 95% CI: 25.8-54.7%). All the patients had R0 resections. Primary tumor downstaging occurred in 44 (91.7%) patients, and nodal downstaging occurred in 19 (39.6%) patients. The 2-year DFS rate was 68.9% (95% CI: 53.0-80.4%), and the 2-year OS rate was 74.7% (95% CI: 60.2-84.6%). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were observed in 7 (12.7%) patients.

In conclusion, neoadjuvant camrelizumab followed by camrelizumab plus chemotherapy showed promising efficacy in treating locally advanced ESCC and had a manageable safety profile.

The prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.

To assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.

Literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.

Two blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.

Overall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.

The analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).

In this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Neoadjuvant therapy is the standard treatment for patients with locally advanced oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). However, the prognosis remains poor and more intensive neoadjuvant treatment might be needed to improve patient outcomes. We therefore aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy, triplet chemotherapy, and doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy in patients with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC.

In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients aged 20-75 years with previously untreated locally advanced OSCC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were recruited from 44 centres across Japan. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) centrally via a web-based system to receive neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [800 mg/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-5] and cisplatin [80 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 3 weeks [NeoCF]), triplet chemotherapy (three courses of fluorouracil [750 mg/m2 per day on days 1-5], cisplatin [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1], and docetaxel [70 mg/m2 per day on day 1] repeated every 3 weeks [NeoCF+D]), or doublet chemotherapy (two courses of fluorouracil [1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4] and cisplatin [75 mg/m2 per day on day 1] separated by an interval of 4 weeks) plus 41·4 Gy radiotherapy [NeoCF+RT]) followed by oesophagectomy with regional lymph node dissection. Randomisation was stratified by T stage and institution. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Analysis of safety included all patients who received at least one course of chemotherapy, and analysis of surgical complications included those who also underwent surgery. This study is registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCTs031180202, and the trial is complete.

A total of 601 patients (529 male individuals and 72 female individuals) were randomly assigned between Dec 5, 2012, and July 20, 2018, with 199 patients in the NeoCF group, 202 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and 200 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Compared with the NeoCF group, during a median follow-up period of 50·7 months (IQR 23·8-70·7), the 3-year overall survival rate was significantly higher in the NeoCF+D group (72·1% [95% CI 65·4-77·8] vs 62·6% [55·5-68·9]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·68, 95% CI 0·50-0·92; p=0·006) but not in the NeoCF+RT group (68·3% [61·3-74·3]; HR 0·84, 0·63-1·12; p=0·12). Grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia occurred in two (1%) of 193 patients in the NeoCF group, 32 (16%) of 196 patients in the NeoCF+D group, and nine (5%) of 191 patients in the NeoCF+RT group. Treatment-related adverse events leading to termination of neoadjuvant therapy were more common in the NeoCF+D group (18 [9%] of 202 participants) than in the NeoCF+RT group (12 [6%] of 200) and NeoCF group (eight [4%] of 199). There were three (2%) treatment-related deaths during neoadjuvant therapy in the NeoCF group, four (2%) deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and two (1%) deaths in the NeoCF+RT group. Grade 2 or higher postoperative pneumonia, anastomotic leak, and recurrent laryngeal nerve paralysis were reported in 19 (10%), 19 (10%), and 28 (15%) of 185 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF group; 18 (10%), 16 (9%), and 19 (10%) of 183 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+D group; and 23 (13%), 23 (13%), and 17 (10%) of 178 patients, respectively, in the NeoCF+RT group. The in-hospital deaths following surgery included three deaths in the NeoCF group, two deaths in the NeoCF+D group, and one in the NeoCF+RT group.

Neoadjuvant triplet chemotherapy followed by oesophagectomy resulted in a statistically significant overall survival benefit compared with doublet chemotherapy and might be the new standard of care for locally advanced OSCC who are in good condition in Japan. Neoadjuvant doublet chemotherapy plus radiotherapy did not show significant improvement of survival compared with doublet chemotherapy.

Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development and National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund.

The aim of this study was to establish a deep learning prediction model for neoadjuvant FLOT chemotherapy response. The neural network utilized clinical data and visual information from whole-slide images (WSIs) of therapy-naïve gastroesophageal cancer biopsies.

This study included 78 patients from the University Hospital of Cologne and 59 patients from the University Hospital of Heidelberg used as external validation.

After surgical resection, 33 patients from Cologne (42.3%) were ypN0 and 45 patients (57.7%) were ypN+, while 23 patients from Heidelberg (39.0%) were ypN0 and 36 patients (61.0%) were ypN+ (p = 0.695). The neural network had an accuracy of 92.1% to predict lymph node metastasis and the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.726. A total of 43 patients from Cologne (55.1%) had less than 50% residual vital tumor (RVT) compared to 34 patients from Heidelberg (57.6%, p = 0.955). The model was able to predict tumor regression with an error of ±14.1% and an AUC of 0.648.

This study demonstrates that visual features extracted by deep learning from therapy-naïve biopsies of gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas correlate with positive lymph nodes and tumor regression. The results will be confirmed in prospective studies to achieve early allocation of patients to the most promising treatment.

Radiotherapy is one of the main treatment options for patients with esophageal cancer; however, it has been linked with an increased risk of cardiac toxicities. In the current study, we evaluated the effect of planning the radiation in deep-inspiration breath hold (DIBH) on the dose sparing of cardiac substructures and lung.

In this study, we analyzed 30 radiation therapy plans from 15 patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer planned for neoadjuvant radiotherapy. Radiation plans were generated for 41.4 Gy and delivered in 1.8 Gy per fraction for free-breathing (FB) and DIBH techniques. We then conducted a comparative dosimetric analysis, evaluating target volume coverage, the impact on cardiac substructures, and lung doses across the two planning techniques for each patient.

There was no significant disparity in target volume dose coverage between DIBH and FB plans. However, the Dmean, D2%, and V30% of the heart experienced substantial reductions in DIBH relative to FB, with values of 6.21 versus 7.02 Gy (p = 0.011), 35.28 versus 35.84 Gy (p = 0.047), and 5% versus 5.8% (p = 0.048), respectively. The Dmean of the left ventricle was notably lower in DIBH compared to FB (4.27 vs. 5.12 Gy, p = 0.0018), accompanied by significant improvements in V10. Additionally, the Dmean and D2% of the left coronary artery, as well as the D2% of the right coronary artery, were significantly lower in DIBH. The dosimetric impact of DIBH on cardiac substructures proved more advantageous for middle esophageal (ME) than distal esophageal (DE) tumors.

Radiotherapy in DIBH could provide a method to reduce the radiation dose to the left ventricle and coronaries, which could reduce the cardiac toxicity of the modality.